Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Cognitive Approach studies – EVALUATION TABLE Using GRAVE state whether the evaluation point is a strength or a weakness for the study and explain your point. Craik and Tulving (1975) LoP Godden & Baddeley Context dependent forgetting Generalisability Refer to target population and sampling method. If not representative, sample cannot be generalised to the target population. (this could be called population validity) Are the participants are true representation of the general population? Reliability If the study is hard to replicate (do again) then it cannot be shown to be reliable. Reliability means that if a study is done again the same results are found. Application If findings from a study can be used to help society in a real-life application, e.g. Craik & Tulving’s study supports the Lop framework then this makes the study more useful, which is an evaluation point But say how it is useful (to get a mark) Validity – Experimental, Ecological or Population? Do the participants believe the research that is taking place? If a study can be seen to be about real life then it is more useful — or if it is not about real life it is not useful. Does the experiment measure what it set out to measure? Is the IV the only variable that could affect the DV? Ethics A study can be evaluated by considering how ethical or how unethical it was- DRIPP C Debriefing Deception Right to Withdraw Informed consent Protection from harm privacy Competence Care needs to be taken in generalising from this study because the sample was limited to 20 students. This is not a representative sample of a wider target population. The experiment is reliable because it was conducted in a controlled lab environment where the procedure was standardised and controls used. For example the questions were presented on a tachistoscope which meant the same timing; font; word size was used for every ppt. Standardised instructions were given to ppts too. Care needs to be taken in generalising from this study because the sample was limited to 18 divers. This is not a representative sample of a wider target population. This means the experiment can be replicated which in turn suggests it is reliable. The experiment is less reliable because it was conducted in a natural environment where there were fewer controls. However the procedure was standardised and the The experiment lacks ecological validity because the task of answering questions about words presented on a tachistoscope is not an everyday occurrence. However it has internal (experimental) validity because of the high level of control within the experiment. This insured that the only variable that could affect the number of words recalled was the type of question asked (structural/phonetic/semantic). Therefore a relationship between the IV and DV could be clearly established. No harm was caused to ppts, neither were any of the other ethical guidelines breached. Therefore we can assume this experiment was ethical. However, the way that memory works according to the LOP framework should be the same for everyone – this means that we can generalise from the study to most other people. The study is useful because it supports the LOP framework devised by Craik and Lockheart. This suggests that memory traces are improved through elaborative rehearsal, in other words sematic (deep level) processing improves memory. This in turn can be used to offer advice to students studying for exams. They should read around the subject and make up revision activities that make the learning meaningful. The study is useful because it supports the cue dependent theory of forgetting devised by Tulving. This suggests that memory traces are improved through context On the face of it this study has ecological validity because it was conducted in a field environment. However, the task of memorising word lists heard through earphones and then having to recall them is not an No harm was caused to ppts, neither were any of the other ethical guidelines breached. Therefore we can assume this experiment was ethical. However, ppts were required to memorise word lists under the Cognitive Approach studies – EVALUATION TABLE Using GRAVE state whether the evaluation point is a strength or a weakness for the study and explain your point. However, the way that forgetting works according to the cue dependency theory (context dependent forgetting) should be the same for everyone – this means that we can generalise from the study to the way most people’s minds work. Duka (2001) with and without alcohol at learning and retrieval.alcohol/alcohol was better than alcohol/no alcohol Care needs to be taken in generalising from this study because the sample was limited to 48 ppts. This is not a representative sample of a wider target population. or Baker (2004) gum, However, the way that forgetting works according to the cue dependency theory (state dependent forgetting) should be the same for everyone – this means that we can generalise from the study to most people. controls that could be used were used. For example the words were recorded and the presentation of the words was at the same rate for each ppt whether on the land or under the sea. This means the experiment can be replicated which in turn suggests it is reliable. However there were problems controlling the weather and time of day but these factors did not seem to affect the results. The experiment is reliable because it was conducted in a controlled lab environment where the procedure was standardised and controls used. For example the quantity of alcohol given to each ppt was the same, as was the learning tasks and time allowed for ppts to memorise the learning material. cues at encoding and retrieval. This in turn can be used to offer advice to schools when organising rooms for students sitting exams. They should consider making the exam rooms more like the classroom where the learning took place. It is also helpful to the police who sometimes take victims back to the scene of the crime to prompt further memories. The study is useful because it supports the cue dependent theory of forgetting devised by Tulving. This suggests that memory traces are improved through state cues at encoding and retrieval. In this case the physiological effects of alcohol. This in turn can be used to offer advice to students when revising for exams. They should consider making their revision state more like the exam state – quiet, calm, drinking only water and maybe chewing a specific flavour gum for each subject! everyday experience (especially for divers!) So the task lacked mundane realism which makes the experiment less ecologically valid. sea which meant they could have been at risk – they did consent to take part, they were trained divers and most were interested in the outcome of the research. The internal (experimental) validity was high because of the high level of controls the experimenters applied, for example the words were recorded, and the presentation of the words was at the same rate for each ppt whether on the land or under the sea. The experiment lacks ecological validity because taking part in a psychology experiment whilst under the influence of alcohol is not an everyday occurrence. However it has internal (experimental) validity because of the high level of control within the experiment. This insured that the only variable that could affect people’s memory was the presence or absence of alcohol during encoding and retrieval. Therefore a relationship between the IV and DV could be clearly established. Although ppts gave informed consent, this research could be considered unethical as it is possibly ill advised to allow ppts to drink alcohol regardless of the circumstances. Cognitive Approach studies – EVALUATION TABLE Using GRAVE state whether the evaluation point is a strength or a weakness for the study and explain your point. Loftus and Palmer (1974) Care needs to be taken in generalising from this study because the sample was limited to 48 students (in experiment 1). This is not a representative sample of a wider target population. However, the way that memory works according to the reconstructive memory theory should be the same for everyone – this means that we can generalise from this study to most people. The experiment is reliable because it was conducted in a controlled lab environment where the procedure was standardised and controls used. For example ppts saw the same videos of car accidents and the same questions were used. Only the critical verb or critical question was changed. This means the experiment can be replicated which in turn suggests it is reliable. The study is useful because it supports reconstructive memory theory proposed by Bartlett. This suggests that memory is altered over time to fit in with existing schemas or knowledge about the world. This in turn can be used to offer advice to juries about the reliability of eye witness testimony. The experiment lacks ecological validity because the task of answering questions about car crashes watched on a video is not an everyday occurrence. Witnessing a real car accident would be very different and the witness may be emotionally affected too which could also affect their memory. No harm was caused to ppts, neither were any of the other ethical guidelines breached. Therefore we can assume this experiment was ethical. However it has internal (experimental) validity because of the high level of control within the experiment. This insured that the only variable that could affect the estimate of speed was the type of question asked (how fast was the car going when it ……). Therefore a relationship between the IV and DV could be clearly established. It showed that changing one word in a question could affect the persons recall. Look how similar the statements in each box are! It is like I cut and pasted and added a few additional bits of information here and there! Once you have understood the basics the rest is just about giving examples